Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Good to know, esp if it keeps the noise profile in check a little too. Looks a great little card, esp if you can get one at £369ish at launch...
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Poll: The Vega Review Thread.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Good to know, esp if it keeps the noise profile in check a little too. Looks a great little card, esp if you can get one at £369ish at launch...
Can't remember if he mentioned the noise levels but he did claim undervolting lowered the temps and was able to stop the core clock from dropping, at under £400 I'm really tempted on a 56 as its close enough to the 64 and I could live with a little less aa to make up the fps difference
So how much faster than the Fury pro is Vega 64? Just picking the games I’m interested in from one review, it looks like anywhere from 30% (worst case – GTA V) up to 58% faster. Averages around 44% faster in my seven games. Is that about right overall?
Pretty good if it is, I still don’t need a card yet thankfully but with the usual driver improvements and hopefully price drops, that could be good in a while.
Pretty good if it is, I still don’t need a card yet thankfully but with the usual driver improvements and hopefully price drops, that could be good in a while.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Seems to sit between the 1070 and 1080, and will probably be within spitting distance of the 1080 once the drivers have matured a little in a few months. I say go for it
Links to said videos would be nice cause i call BS on them. I can maintain a minimum of 67 on Amiens(one of the worst performance maps) 64p full server and are usually around 75ish fps @4k ultra preset on a 4770k@4,3 and stock 1080ti boosting to around 1800mhz so these supposed video creators must be doing something wrong. Im even experiencing an ever so slight cpu bottleneck as GPU util will in rare times drop down to 94-95% but it is not something i would factor into my results. Though worth noting here is that my 1080ti will on its own boost to near 1900 on its own unless the pc is bottlenecking elsewhere(temp is not an issue never gets above 65) so there is even more performance to be gained from this card with a higher CPU overclock or newer CPU in general.Well the countless youtube videos I have watched so far will disagree with youbattlefield 1 maxed out is around 40/50 fps
Of course this can very depend on the map.
S
Sod it I'm in, gibbo take my moneySeems to sit between the 1070 and 1080, and will probably be within spitting distance of the 1080 once the drivers have matured a little in a few months. I say go for it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
S
Sod it I'm in, gibbo take my money
Just make sure you're on to get one of the first 'bargain' lot!!
Uploading a vid of fury x at 4k on a ryzen 1700 at stock with the high preset, sinai desert 64 player multi, with a bloody sandstorm right at the start as well. Gonna take about an hour to upload 
Had 3 bloody bounce shots in a row against another tank, not sure why they introduced that gimmick as it just adds an element of random luck to the game where i had a tank pretty much dead to rights.
Had 3 bloody bounce shots in a row against another tank, not sure why they introduced that gimmick as it just adds an element of random luck to the game where i had a tank pretty much dead to rights.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,675
- Location
- The KOP
Drops into 40s here, listen Battlefield I don't even class has a very demanding game. If a 1080 ti can maintain 60fps in one title and then others drops into 40/50fps it isn't a true 4k GPU nothing is yet. A Ti will maintain a 60fps is all titles at 1440p that is a true 1440p GPU. See what I mean?
A true single 4K GPU is still a while away yet and it's going to get more demanding once titles start using true 4k assets.
The 64 doesn't seem to be that much faster. In fact they have had to set limits on power draw etc to stop you from getting too close to the higher priced card. It uses exactly the same VRM's etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,204
Turn off all the crap you don't need or like and that will go up to 60 fps easy. Ultra settings are way over rated.
Thanks for the link. Dont know why his performance is so dreadful mine certainly isnt. The only thing i can think of right now is the OS difference as im on win7 and he is on win10 using dx12.
My fury 4k gameplay,
Good 25x14 card, 4k is just a bridge too far.
I don't think the memory helps here, i found that was the main limitation at 4k.
Vega eats it easily.
It was a few hundred megs off the 4 gig limit so was doing reasonably well. Clocking up the ryzen to 3.8 from stock would probably help some as well. 1440p it does really well in at ultra.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2011
- Posts
- 3,299
So Vega isn't as fast as my 1080ti?
If you are running all high, perhaps it is okay.
Nope, its a 1080 competitor at best, which could improve once amd get the thumb out and unlock the new features that are meant to help with performance increases.
What features are these? Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer is already enabled on Vega 64.
Whatever the one is people keep going on about, primitive shader or primitive discard or whatever its called, can't remember the name offhand.